Mike Lister

A member has asked that his post be reinstated because it contains, "a very serious conclusion about gifts", allegedly. The same poster went on to say that I have supposedly been fighting his conclusion for months. The post is shown below, it was removed because several posters, including myself, assumed it was thinly veiled sarcasm rather than anything sincere. The post concludes that there is no tax exemption of any remitted foreign assessible income. I'll leave it to that poster to argue that it was not sarcasm and for members to determine if it was or was not. With regard to me having fought this posters position on this subject for many months: I don't really have a position on Gift tax and don't believe I ever have, other than we don't know enough about it to confidently state much apart from the blindingly obvious and those things are contained in the document we have produced. Once again, I'll leave it to that poster to substantiate that we do know enough to be able to make claims and to provide proof that we do. Well, Mike, I think I finally found the answer to the question I've asked you several times, namely: What makes a remittance of assessable income no longer assessable or taxable -- because the end destination of this remittance is a gift? Well, of course, being an end destination as a gift doesn't -- as your answer above clearly states -- there's nothing special about (the assessability of remitted income) due to its final destination. Nothing - not real estate purchase, new car purchase, bill paying, stock investment, soi dog foundation, and gift. And RD doesn't care if it's a real gift, or bogus -- they get their tax payment upfront, before it's distributed, as either a real gift; a bogus gift, with recipient acting as an intermediary; or as a payment to the recipient, for services or products rendered. Those actions have separate tax implications. So, as you say above, there's no tax exemption of remitted foreign assessable income for any final purpose, to include gifts. There. Glad we got that settled.

I have PM'd you on this subject, that's where this discussion ends. Your post and any others along similar lines will be removed in five minutes time.

The forum rules are very clear, 5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

The private hospitals have CT scanners as does Suan Doc, the latter will be the most cost effective but I'm sorry I don't know the current price. You might try going to Suan Doc and asking them...Sriphat does not have it's own scanners, they use Suan Doc's.

Actually no, the cap does not fit. I am very pleased that members such as yourself have taken the time and put in effort, researching case histories and understanding the tax code et al, in great detail. Sadly you seem to be the only person (by a wide margin) who does understand that detail to the level that you do. Your knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter remains invaluable to the members, the thread and the document I am compiling. For some peculiar reason that I don't fully understand, I seem to be viewed in some quarters as the subject matter expert, despite never once claiming to be such and despite stating I am the exact opposite, when in fact my role has only ever been to gather information provided from various sources and to document it. This has meant that I have had to pay close attention to the various debates and extract those parts that are useful and incorporate them into the document that some still refer to as a tax guide. It has also meant that I have been forced to challenge some statements that are patently false, knowing they were false has not been difficult in many cases! I let slip many months ago that I had worked for Deloitte in The City for four years, I imagine this has been supportive of my perceived "expert" status. It's just as well that I didn't expand on my time with the firm, otherwise I might have mentioned that I spent a year as a part of a team of four who launched the joint venture company, Iveco/Ford UK, otherwise I might be labelled as an expert on trucks! My role always has been to produce a document on Thai tax that will benefit the membership, no more no less. My role has never been to act as the expert on Thai tax and I have never claimed to be such, I have even gone to great lengths in the document and elsewhere to reinforce that I am not. I happily leave that role of Thai tax expert to those such as yourself who have the first hand experience of the Thai tax system. That is not to say that I do not understand what I have penned and independently researched but that hardly qualifies as expert status. And because I understand the things I have written, I am well positioned to pass along that knowledge to other members, without detracting from the discussion in this thread. The fact that I am accustomed to filing Thai and international tax returns probably also helps. If there was ever an expectation by anyone that I might research case histories, examine DTA's in detail, research precedents or anything similar, expecters might think carefully about where that idea originated because it was never from me!

Very much agreed, we've been saying the same thing since December last year: "The purpose of the new rule is to reduce tax avoidance and to help prevent tax evasion. This also now means that overseas funds transferred into Thailand, by foreigners who are tax resident here, potentially have an increased risk of being taxed".

Sorry, I misunderstood, I hadn't picked up on the fact you were discussing transfer fees et al and taxes on property.

Any supporting evidence for that statement? The Thai Revenue Department has far greater authority, reach and more extensive powers than the Land Office and the Thai Revenue Code does allow for Gift Tax. It seems improbable that if the Revenue allowed it, that the Land Office wouldn't.

My knowledge of non-resident bank accounts in Thailand is now dated, it stems from 15 years ago when HSBC Thailand opened my account as a non-resident. When quizzed as to why, my assigned Premier Team contact told me it was standard practise that saved a lot of problems with repatriation of funds and tax. That made a lot of since to me in that the only downside was I was unable to earn interest and/or deposit THB cash. A link below explains the differences. Subsequent discussions in forums showed that most foreigners didn't know what sort of account they held and that hardly any knew there are two different types. It was later shown that some held resident accounts, some held non-resident accounts. When HSBC Thailand retail banking closed, I transitioned to two Thai banks where I was automatically given resident accounts. There has been a transition from a default, non-resident account, to a resident account, except in the case of Foreign Currency Accounts where non-resident accounts for foreigners are common. https://www.tilleke.com/insights/banking-thailand-resident-or-non-resident-account/

Yes it is restrictive, I agree. The reason for that is because I don't feel that collectively, we understand all the nuances sufficiently well to be able to make statements with confidence, above and beyond a small handful of applications of Gift Tax. From what you've written, it appears that I feel the same way that the reputable tax consulting firms do! I would much prefer to err on the side of caution on something like this, rather than rush to a conclusion that is not reliable. There will be members who are capable of making their own assessment but there will be far more who are not and who will be tempted by the first whiff of an opportunity to not pay tax, without understanding the implications. Those things said, the Introduction to Personal Tax in Thailand does set out the known parameters of the Gift Tax law but does not attempt to interpret them or their nuances.

There is no Tax Guide, we haven't produced one, we only have an Introduction to Personal Tax. As other posters in this thread have pointed out, the, "Introduction to Personal Tax in Thailand", does not provide advice, instead it provides information for members to consider. That effort has nothing to do however, with the way forum rules are enforced on the subject of tax and law, which is a totally different subject, as I suspect you well know!

Can we be clear what you think my approach to Gift Tax is, because to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever setting out any approach? The Introduction to Personal Tax concludes the following on the subject of Gift tax, which really does mirror my personal views: "Because Gift Tax is predominantly a domain of the wealthy and depends to a large extent on local practise, there is a shortage of confirmed information on this subject". And, "Members wishing to exercise this option should seek qualified advice before using this option to Gift untaxed funds". And, "Until this becomes more clear, it is critical that anyone wishing to use Gift Tax, seeks professional advice".

I didn't allude to anything, that's your interpretation, I merely told you what I might do if I were the TRD in that scenario, that's all. If you want to quiz anyone about what might happen in hypothetical scenarios, I suggest you put your questions to a Thai certified CPA or the RD because that's not my role.

Pot shots noted! What can I say, we are a commercial site and we do have rules and when it comes to the subject of tax and the law, we will follow the rules to the letter. If members want to advise on these things they will need formal Thai qualifications and the sites owners permission. Until that time, debate away and set out options, share knowledge and opinions, no more.

A lot of people these days are used to high RPM japanese style engines which, whilst reliable and fuel efficient, whine like an electric sowing machine. Personally, there's no thrill quite like sitting in a muscle car and counting the beats, the sound alone is worth half the expense.

No I saw that and understand it. A couple of things: Quote 1 above refers to pensions, it does not refer specifically to Government Pensions which is what you stated in your earlier post! He does not actually say that Government Pensions are taxable, as you said. He also uses the word "probably" rather than making a definitive statement. As far as his marketing and advertising blurb is concerned, I feel that what he wrote is entirely reasonable. I don't feel it's appropriate to refer to a named Thai business in derogatory terms, there are defamation issue to consider. If members wish to pass comment about the industry in general non-specific terms, that would be a better approach.

I have removed a post that describes tax evasion in some detail and honestly, the poster should know better, not only is it against the forum rules it's against the law. Further posts of anything even vaguely similar will have consequences.

You have my sympathies in respect of your former role. Whilst I don't like to play the rules card, my present role here is to ensure that: You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source. https://aseannow.com/forum_rules/ Members need to be reasonable about this. We've gone out of our way to confirm that we're not providing tax advice, especially not advice that is contrary to the known laws.

Perhaps true that they will not, but who are you or anyone else to advise how to approach the laws rather than to state what those laws are! There is nothing in the TRD Code that says JG can give you a pass on this and it will be guaranteed to be OK. Not trying to be argumentative but it comes back to a fundamental point of whether to advise or to inform, which I imagine you will brush off.

I agree, we already said: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not. For example, funds imported to buy real estate will be viewed in the same way that imported funds for any other purpose will be, there's nothing special about the fact those funds are buying property versus anything else".

I think if I was TRD in that scenario I might do some forensics and look at your lifestyle and your estimated monthly expenditures and also at your balance of funds in country and attempt to assess the balance of probability that the gift was genuine. You have genuine non-assessible income and you have assessable income, commingled within the remittance, and you claim Gift Tax exemption on all of it, does it appear that you are in a financial position to do that and if so, will you be able to support yourself adequately without resorting to that gift. If it appeared kosher, you might get a pass. If it appeared suspect I might dig deeper into every nook, crevice and orifice I could find along with a few I made up.

Let's not personalise this, if you have a point or an argument to make, please make it.

"is one of those scaring Expats to use their services by stating that Govt Pensions are taxable in Thailand". "The issue of Govt Pensions and whether they will be classified as taxable income is still unclear". I don't agree with either of the above statements. The issue of whether or not UK government pensions are taxable in Thailand is perfectly clear, they are not. In the video I watched, it was said that UK government pensions are not taxable here so I don't believe he is scaring anyone into believing something that's untrue, apart from perhaps you.

I do not agree that Thai Gift Tax has nothing to do with the source of the gift, if that source is attempting to avoid Thai tax by claiming the remittance was a Gift to another, when in reality it was intended to be returned to the gifter. That has been the clear intention of posters thus far when discussing Gift Tax, to use it as a vehicle to circumvent PIT on remittances. If you don't agree, that's OK too, we can agree to disagree on this issue.

Which country's government pension? They haven't said that about UK gov pensions.